Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1887-09-16

The Arguments of senator Edmunds, SEN
ator Hoar, Col. Haskins and MIR. Fiheld.

then spoke for the state Of Vermont and
the Vermont st tie Grange. Mt tlheih
followed Mr.. Haskins with an able argu-
ment of an hours length.
MR. EDMUNDs's ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Edmunds, in his argument for the
State Grange and the people OF Vermont
spoke rapidly for half an hour. Replying
to Mr. Fifield's assertion that the farmers
had been conspicuous at the hearing only
by their absence, he asserted that they had
something else to do but if they were not
there they were not disinterested they
form the largest portion of the commu-
nifty, and the interstate law was enacted
largely for the prot CiiUn of the uuorgAu-
ized masses. Ii -. old therefore be con
strued broadly, NO. to do any injustice,
but to prevent Injustice He claimed that
the evidence had fully made out that the
National Despatch is contrivance for
which the Central Vermont is chiefly
responsible but in which the Grand Trunk
is Interested as a large owner OF cars, and
which that road and the lower roads EN-
ploy Just as much as the Central does Tor
through traffic This makes them all
responsible for determinations that violate
section four.
Mr.. Edmunds took the broad ground
that the railroad companies are not only
bound, under the fourth section of the
law, not to charge more for a short haul
than for long haul, but they are also
equally bound, under the first section, to
make all rates, TO whatever points, just
and reasonable. 1t was the intention of
Congress in enacting the law to procure
the establishment of such rates as should
be a fair aAd reasonable compensation for
services performed, and no more. 1t was
not fair and reasonable tariff, he said,
that allowed railroad to set down freight
at a greater distance from given starting
point at the same price as at a lesser dis
lance. The same rule applies to railroads
as to every other kind OF business or SER
vice. The farm hand, the mill operative,
and the laborer of every sort receives pay
according to the actual service performed,
and the railroads should be paid for ser
vice on precisely the same basis. II they
try to subvert the clear meaning and in
tent of the law Congress will surely see
that further and effective compulsory
measures are applied.
COL. HAsKINs's ARGUMENT.
Col. haskins stated that he appeared
not only for the State Grange but for the
public under AN appointment from the
governor of the State. He contehded that
the evidence had fixed the fact beyond all
cavil that the National Despatch line. be-
hind which defendants had undertaken to
shield themselves, was myth-a thing
without substance that the through as
well as the local freight rates were all
assented to and acquiesced i'll by all the
other roads of which the defendants line
was composed and that these rates con-
stituted joint tariff over a continuous
line of roads within the plain meaning of
the law This fact being established, and
the published rates showing the fact com
planned of, that these defendants charged
a greater sum for the shorter than the
longer haul, for freight going in the same
direction-the shorter being included in
the longer-it was in contravention of the
provisions Of the fourth section of the in
ter-State commerce act. The comparison
tables which had been submitted, show
ing what similar service is performed
for by other lines of railroad running west
from Boston, was evidence overwhelming
of the unreasonableness of the defendants
charges and therefore in violation of the
provisions of the first section of the act.
The petitioners were entitled to the relief
prayed for, unless the defendants had
shown that the circumstances under
which they performed this service, as com
pared with the service performed by COM
peting lines of traffic, were so entirely dis
similar in their conditions that they We're
justified in charging more for the
short than the long haul. This
they have undertaken to do but
have failed They might as well
claim that a line of steamers from Boston
to New Orleans and from thence up the
Mississippi river to the West was an i'm
portant competitive water line, as that
the water route from Boston to Portland
and Halifax, or from Boston to Newport
News, Va, and from thence through the
Chesapeake were competitive lines. In
the light of the evidence of the agents of
these several steamship routes, the de
PENDANTS claim of water competition lS
left without prop TO stand upon. The
testimony shows, If it shows anything,
that all the advantages of the various
water lines are with the Central Vermont
and its connections. AS to the natural,
phys cal and climatic disadvantages which
have been attempted to he shown they are
not of that character as to bring the de
PENDANT roads wit HIN the statutory eXcep
tiOns. Then main reliance by way of de
fence they have practically abandoned.
The eXorbitant rates placed upon freight
taken from and into Vermont have driven
the manufacturers from us and converted
many once productive farms into barren
sheep pastures. Every additional penny
charged for the transportation of freight
by Vermont railroads, beyond that
charged 10y lines into other States, makes
the marketable value of the ploducts OF
Vermont farmers and manufacturers so
much less at their own door. 1t also adds
TO the additional cost of everything that
is purchased in the Boston and New York
markets and brought within the State for
our use and consumption. The freight
rates both into and out OF Vermont have
TEN of robbery of our people by the rail
road, and To correct this wrong the power
and authority of this commission has been
invoked, and the people of Vermont con
fidently expect to be relieved by and
through its action in this matter
MR. FIFIELD's ARGUMENT.
Mr., Fifield, counsel foI the Central Yer
mont, spoke earnestly and eloquently OF
the position of the Central Vermont in
this case, and of the success which had at
tended Governor Smiths efforts to bring
up the road to its present efficiency ant
capacity for usefulness, In the course Of
his argument he produced statistics tC
show that Vermont agriculture is in q
very prosperous condition, and claimed
that reduction in freights would tend t
cripple the road and lessen its efficiency
for Vermont farmers and shippers.
Mr. Stout, counsel for the Boston anC
Lowell and Grand Trunk, claimed tha
the law ought not to be construed so a,
TO affect the existing arrangements will
his road and the connecting links OIL
through traffic for the West. He claimed